 | TL;DR: Brandon Doyle gave five different AI models $1,000 each to trade real stocks. Only one of them was ever actually left alone long enough to prove anything.
That model was Claude. It put $120 into Intel on a thesis nobody else caught in time — the US government's stake, the regulatory tailwind for AI infrastructure — and that $120 is now $550. The other four modeled the same information and produced the same output every AI product on the market is built to produce: a hedge, wrapped in a disclaimer, sized to survive a compliance review nobody in the room was actually running. Same market data. Same tools. One outcome that looks like conviction and four that look like liability management. Same leverage mechanics that made this trade possible — SOXL, TQQQ, the whole triple-exposure category — are, this week, exactly what regulators are flagging as systemic risk. Doesn't undo the point. It just confirms the point was never about the leverage. It was about who's actually allowed to answer for the position.
At first glance, it felt like Claude is breaking the rule. But on second thought, Claude seems to be living up to it potential – a strategic chess player, with moves that surprise the opponents. It reminded me about the recent incident of OpenAI breaking out of its sandbox and hacking into Huggingface. At one point, it raises serious concerns about cybersecurity. On the other hands, it seems to becoming dangerously adventurous and exciting. It the same type of entrepreneurship spirit, breaking out of set moulds to drive innovation. I was also reminded about how the Lord directed David in his battle with the Philistines. At the first run, the Lord commanded him to charge straight on towards the enemy, and won. The enemy learnt their lesson, regroup and strengthened their defences, and came again at David. But in this second time, the Lord refrained David. Instead, he gave a bizarre instruction: Ask David to go around the enemy camp and wait for the Lord's signal. You've might have read about it too: Then the Philistines went up once again and deployed themselves in the Valley of Rephaim. Therefore David inquired of the Lord, and He said, "You shall not go up; circle around behind them, and come upon them in front of the mulberry trees. And it shall be, when you hear the sound of marching in the tops of the mulberry trees, then you shall advance quickly. For then the Lord will go out before you to strike the camp of the Philistines." And David did so, as the Lord commanded him; and he drove back the Philistines from Geba as far as Gezer. (2 Samuel 5:22-25) This is some serious surprise tactic from the Lord. The Philistines never see that coming – they lose to the rule-breaker. _____________________________ The bottleneck was never the analysis — every AI in that experiment could price the trade. The bottleneck was who gets blamed if it's wrong. That's the part that never shows up in a benchmark: talent isn't the scarce resource in most of these stories. Permission is.
Actually, this reminds me of something else already up here — a fund that got called "insane" for its entry price and ended up sitting on a stake worth over a trillion dollars: Radical Ventures' Rob Toews explains why his fund said yes when everyone else said no
Would you have let it hold the position, or pulled it the second it went red? Drop your take below. 👇
Clip credit: Chris Koerner on The Koerner Office Podcast — full video on their channel. DM for credit or removal requests.
[link] [comments] |
Predictive technology: computational social science
